Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                )
                                )
TV 45 Productions, Inc.         )    File No. EB-02-SD-033
                                )
Licensee, KLHU-CA               )    NAL/Acct. No. 200232940003
Lake Havasu City, Arizona       )
                                )    FRN 0004-0823-76
                                   

                        FORFEITURE ORDER 

Adopted:  June 17,  2002                Released:  June 19, 2002

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

1.        In  this  Forfeiture  Order  (``Order''),  we  issue  a 
  monetary  forfeiture in  the amount  of four  thousand  dollars 
  ($4,000) to  TV 45 Productions, Inc.  (``TV 45''), licensee  of 
  Class A  television station KLHU-CA,  for willful and  repeated 
  violation of  Sections 11.35(a) and  11.61 of the  Commission's 
  Rules  (``Rules'').1   The noted  violations  involve  TV  45's 
  failure  to  ensure  that  Emergency  Alert  System   (``EAS'') 
  equipment  is installed  and  operational and  its  failure  to 
  conduct required weekly and monthly tests of the EAS.

2.        On  March  13,  2002,   the  Commission's  San   Diego, 
  California,  Field  Office  (``San  Diego  Office'')  issued  a 
  Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to TV  45 
  for  a forfeiture  in  the  amount of  eight  thousand  dollars 
  ($8,000).2   TV 45  filed a  response to  the NAL  on April  1, 
  2002.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

3.        On January 30, 2002, an agent from the San Diego Office 
  inspected  KLHU-CA.  During  the  inspection, the  agent  found 
  that TV 45 did  not have any EAS equipment installed.   Because 
  there was  no EAS equipment installed,  the station was  unable 
  to   monitor  EAS   transmissions  from   designated   sources, 
  originate EAS transmissions or retransmit EAS transmissions  or 
  required tests.   The owner  of the station,  James W.  Husted, 
  advised  the agent  that KLHU-CA  had  only recently  become  a 
  Class A  television station and that  it had purchased but  had 
  not yet  installed the EAS equipment.   Mr. Husted also  showed 
  the  agent  that KLHU-CA  had  the  EAS unit  on  hand  at  the 
  station.  Upon  returning to  the San Diego  Office, the  agent 
  checked  the FCC  database  and  found that  KLHU-CA  had  been 
  granted  Class  A  television  status  on  February  6,   2001, 
  approximately one year prior to the inspection.  

4.        On March 13, 2002, the  San Diego Office issued an  NAL 
  for a forfeiture in  the amount of $8,000 to TV 45 for  failure 
  to ensure  that EAS equipment is  installed and operational  in 
  willful and repeated violation of Section 11.35(a) and  failure 
  to conduct  required weekly  and monthly EAS  tests in  willful 
  and repeated  violation of Section 11.61.3   TV 45 submitted  a 
  response to the NAL  on April 1, 2002.  In its response, TV  45 
  admits that the violations occurred, but nevertheless  presents 
  several arguments for  rescission or reduction of the  proposed 
  forfeiture.  First,  TV 45  states that the  EAS equipment  was 
  not hooked up at the time of the inspection because KLHU-CA  is 
  located in  a remote community,  where it is  difficult to  get 
  engineering assistance.   TV 45 states  that it had  contracted 
  with  a contract  engineer to  install  the EAS  equipment  and 
  repeatedly  asked him  to  finish  the job,  but  the  contract 
  engineer assured  TV 45 that the equipment  did not have to  be 
  installed immediately.   TV 45 also  provides a statement  from 
  the  contract engineer,  who  maintains  that he  is  the  only 
  broadcast  engineer within  150 miles  of KLHU-CA  and that  he 
  simply had not  worked installation of KLHU-CA's EAS  equipment 
  into his  busy schedule.  Additionally, TV  45 asserts that  it 
  has a record of compliance with the FCC rules.  Finally, TV  45 
  argues that KLHU-CA is a small station with little revenue  and 
  no profits and that  payment of the forfeiture would result  in 
  a serious  financial hardship for the  station.  In support  of 
  this argument,  TV 45 provides  copies of its  tax returns  for 
  1999, 2000 and 2001.  

                      III.      DISCUSSION

5.        The forfeiture  amount in  this  case was  assessed  in 
  accordance with  Section 503(b)  of the  Communications Act  of 
  1934, as  amended (``Act''),4 Section 1.80  of the Rules,5  and 
  The Commission's Forfeiture  Policy Statement and Amendment  of 
  Section  1.80  of  the  Rules  to  Incorporate  the  Forfeiture 
  Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC  Rcd 
  303 (1999).  In  examining TV 45's response, Section 503(b)  of 
  the  Act requires  that the  Commission take  into account  the 
  nature,  circumstances, extent  and  gravity of  the  violation 
  and, with respect  to the violator, the degree of  culpability, 
  any history of prior  offenses, ability to pay, and other  such 
  matters as justice may require.6

6.        Section  11.35(a)  of  the  Rules  requires   broadcast 
  stations,  including Class  A television  stations, to  install 
  and maintain operational  EAS equipment so that monitoring  and 
  transmitting functions are available during the times when  the 
  station is in  operation.  Section 11.61 of the Rules  requires 
  broadcast stations to  conduct weekly and monthly tests of  the 
  EAS.   TV  45  admits  that  it  did  not  have  EAS  equipment 
  installed at KLHU-CA from the time that KLHU-CA received  Class 
  A  television  status   until  the  time  of  the   inspection.  
  Accordingly,  we  find that  TV  45  willfully  and  repeatedly 
  violated Sections 11.35(a) and 11.61 of the Rules.

7.        TV 45  asserts  that KLHU-CA  is  located in  a  remote 
  community where it  is difficult to get engineering  assistance 
  and that, despite repeated requests, its contract engineer  had 
  not yet installed the  EAS equipment due to his busy  schedule.  
  However, as  TV 45  acknowledges in  its response  to the  NAL, 
  licensees are responsible  for the acts and omissions of  their 
  independent  contractors.  See  Netcom Technologies,  Inc.,  16 
  FCC Rcd 9524, 9526  (Enf. Bur. 2001); MTD, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd  34, 
  35 (1991); Wagenvoord  Broadcasting Co., 35 FCC 2d 361  (1972).  
  Thus, we  do not think that  these facts warrant mitigation  of 
  the forfeiture  amount, particularly given  that almost a  full 
  year  lapsed between  the time  that KLHU-CA  received Class  A 
  television status,  and therefore was  required to install  EAS 
  equipment, and the time of the inspection.

8.        TV 45 also asserts that  its record of compliance  with 
  the Commission's rules  warrants mitigation of the  forfeiture.  
  However,  the  Commission has  considered  the  duration  of  a 
  violation in  considering whether a licensee  has a history  of 
  overall  compliance.  See  Commercial Radio  Service Corp.,  16 
  FCC Rcd 3543, 3545 (Enf. Bur., Tech. & Pub. Safety Div.,  2001) 
  (denying a reduction for a history of overall compliance  where 
  the licensee operated eleven specialized mobile radio  stations 
  without authorization for  five months).  In light of the  fact 
  KLHU-CA operated  without EAS equipment  for approximately  one 
  year after  it received Class  A television status,  we do  not 
  believe that  TV 45 has  a history of  overall compliance  with 
  the  Commission's rules  for this  station and  therefore  find 
  that no  reduction of the  forfeiture based on  this factor  is 
  warranted.  

9.        Finally, TV 45 argues that  KLHU-CA is a small  station 
  with little  revenue and  no profits  and that  payment of  the 
  forfeiture would  result in  a serious  financial hardship  for 
  the station.  The  Commission has determined that, in  general, 
  a  licensee's gross  revenues are  the  best indicator  of  its 
  ability  to  pay  a  forfeiture.   See  PJB  Communications  of 
  Virginia, Inc., 7  FCC Rcd 2088, 2089 (1992).  After  reviewing 
  the financial  documentation submitted  by TV  45, we  conclude 
  that it  is appropriate  to reduce the  forfeiture amount  from 
  $8,000 to $4,000. 

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

10.       Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED that,  pursuant to  Section 
  503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4)  of 
  the Rules,7 TV 45  Productions, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A  MONETARY 
  FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000)  for 
  failure  to  ensure  that  EAS  equipment  was  installed   and 
  operational  in  willful  and  repeated  violation  of  Section 
  11.35(a) of  the Rules and failure  to conduct required  weekly 
  and  monthly EAS  tests in  willful and  repeated violation  of 
  Section 11.61 of the Rules.

11.       Payment of the forfeiture shall  be made in the  manner 
  provided for  in Section 1.80  of the Rules  within 30 days  of 
  the  release of  this Order.   If the  forfeiture is  not  paid 
  within the  period specified, the case  may be referred to  the 
  Department  of  Justice  for  collection  pursuant  to  Section 
  504(a) of the Act.8  Payment may be made by mailing a check  or 
  similar  instrument,  payable  to  the  order  of  the  Federal 
  Communications  Commission,   to  the  Federal   Communications 
  Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.   The 
  payment  should reference  NAL/Acct. No.  200232940003 and  FRN 
  0004-0823-76.  Requests for  full payment under an  installment 
  plan  should  be  sent  to:  Chief,  Revenue  and   Receivables 
  Operations  Group,  445 12th  Street,  S.W.,  Washington,  D.C. 
  20554.9

12.       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that  a copy of this Order  shall 
  be sent  by Certified Mail  Return Receipt Requested  to TV  45 
  Productions, Inc., 1600  W. Acoma Blvd., Suite 36, Lake  Havasu 
  City,  Arizona 86403,  and to  its counsel,  Peter  Tannenwald, 
  Esq., Irwin,  Campbell &  Tannenwald, P.C.,  1730 Rhode  Island 
  Avenue, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20036-3101.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

  1 47 C.F.R.  11.35(a) and 11.61.  

  2 Notice  of Apparent Liability  for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct.  No. 
200232940003 (Enf.  Bur., San  Diego Office,  released March  13, 
2002).    

  3 Although the NAL  cited TV 45 for violations of both  Section 
11.35(a)  and  Section   11.61,  it  only   proposed  an   $8,000 
forfeiture, the base forfeiture amount for failure to install EAS 
equipment.  The NAL did not propose a separate forfeiture for  TV 
45's failure to conduct required weekly and monthly EAS tests.

  4 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

  5 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

  6 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

  7 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

  8 47 U.S.C.  504(a).

  9 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.